November 21, 2010

Categories:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insists that civilian courts have “a good track record of convicting terrorists.”

Addressing the issue on the heels of the Ahmed Ghailani case, in which the Guantanamo Bay detainee was convicted on one charge related to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, Clinton said the system is better than military commissions.

“If you look at the comparison between terrorists who are now serving time in our maximum security prisons compared to what military commissions have been able to do, there's no comparison,” she said in an interview airing Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “We get convictions, we send people away in our civilian courts at a much more regularized-- and-- and predictable way than yet we've been able to figure out how in the military commission.”

The Ghailani case rekindled the debate over civilian trials for terror suspects, as he was acquitted on all but one of the nearly 300 charges. Yet, Clinton called the civilian court system the “best system in the world.”

“It is good enough and strong enough to either convict and sentence the guilty, or even execute where appropriate, and where you can't convince an American jury, which is certainly obsessed with terrorism, maybe there's a question about the strength of the case,” she said.

Share this Article

Reader Comments (38)

Pages

This is another example of the idiots running this country and the socialist Democrats in it. With Clinton, Obama and Holder in charge we would let Osama Bin Laden go free and probably apologize for the trial itself.
Military trials are the ONLY trials for these terrorists, but Obama wants to make things very easy for his fellow muslims.

This is another example of the idiots running this country and the socialist Democrats in it. With Clinton, Obama and Holder in charge we would let Osama Bin Laden go free and probably apologize for the trial itself.
Military trials are the ONLY trials for these terrorists, but Obama wants to make things very easy for his fellow muslims.

Terrorists...... WAR terrorists...Security of the citizens security....Hillary doesn't have much FAITH in the military does she?....OR....Is she MORE concerned about her friendship with Holder....Holder was involved in Bill Clinton's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army...

So let's train our soldiers now in reading Miranda and collection evidence during battle with an evidence. As they have nothing else to carry, what about some stuff that helps to proof evidence. This Admin is really going bananas now.

GOOD, our legal system does punish the guilty without giving up the moral high ground. War does end, and the winner is the one on top at the end. The moral high ground is built on honor, and dignity, and respect. Why are those ideals a liability when faced with adversity.

Hillary completely ignored the biggest problem with civilian courts: The rules of evidence can compromise sensitive intelligence gathering.
For example, if a CIA agent has located an al-Qaeda terrorist, then if that terrorist is in an American courtroom, he can demand to face his accuser (the CIA agent) directly, thus blowing the agent's cover.

Each time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth, (the only time she had it shut was re that blue dress), I get sick to my stomach...wondering why America the Beautiful is being so vilified by this woman who has NOTHING to her credit as a truly liberated women because if she were, she would've never 'stood by her man'. after all he did to her...I come from the old world and don't disgard History....

Posted By: Each time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth, (the only time she had it shut was re that blue dress), I | November 21, 2010 at 03:20 PM

Each time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth, (the only time she had it shut was re that blue dress), I get sick to my stomach...wondering why America the Beautiful is being so vilified by this woman who has NOTHING to her credit as a truly liberated women because if she were, she would've never 'stood by her man'. after all he did to her...I come from the old world and don't disgard History....

Hillary is an idiot. The reason that civilian courts fare better than military commission courts is because the libs like Holder and his cohorts in the Justice Dept spent the last seven years under Bush litigating their constitutionality.
Hillary, you may be an illiterate broad. But Americans are not.

I'm curious how many Americans will have to die due to the failure to eliminate terrorist threats allowed to flow through Hillary's righteous civil courts before their concern shifts from the concern for appearances by our enemies to actual concern for American lives.

Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S., although at the time no one took them seriously. Then they attacked us. Gitmo detainees were given Geneva Convention rights, which detail the treatment to be given to prisoners of war. Trying these terrorists in civil courts defies logic.

So terrorisr=ts need to get the soft treatment hugh? Perhaps we need a good investigation of the Clintons needed lotas of money for their 2nd Presidential Campaign. They invited the Chinese to the White House. and went home . Suddenly the Chinese had a great big nuclear program. they now threaten us with and the Clintons seem to have been given many dollars.
Was there a sale or are none of these issues even related.???
Perhaps ???? It needs to be really investigated and cleared up.

And perhaps it means your administration, your attorney general, your president are just too incompetent to convict, too weak to strike when necessary, and too ignorant to know reality: we are at war, we should act like we want to win, we need to profile (properly), and act like we want to win. Where is Churchill when you need him: "never give in, never give in, never, never never."

Totally agree with Hillary Clinton. Civil courts can try people better than military courts. Specially when not everyone in Guantanamo has been proven to be a terrorist. It is such a shame how many of you hate the Clintons!

The Secretary of State is right. We have a history of handling terrorist successfully in civilian court. So far military commissions have produced two acquitals and one plea bargain conviction. There are numerous fallacies in these posts
1. Military Commissions are not Kangaroo Courts. Most military officers are not comfortable with water boarding (as it is illegal under military rules) and are skeptical about information gained under enhanced coercision.
2. Many of the detainees captured in Afghanistan are not directly tied to terrorist activity.
3. Few major crimes are tried under military commissions even for active duty military. MAJ Hassan is being tried in civilian court despite being active duty and killing fellow soldiers on a military base. Most JAG officers do not have capital crimes experience.

Posted By: From one who has dealt with captured terrorist | November 22, 2010 at 09:20 AM

For all you non-veterans, recall that the last time tribunals were held were at Nurenburg and even those were not military tribunals. Only the SS Nazis used military tribunals which were kangaroo courts and millions were executed outright or sent to concentration and labor camps. Gitmo in inself is an end-run around the Consititution which all you armchair activists claim to support. The military lawyers (JAGS) themselves have objected to the tribunals which do not allow a fair hearing of evidence or confronting witnesses. Also the Bush torture policy made a fair trial for many unobtainable. Just as Bush-Cheney lied about WMD and everything else, they lied about Gitmo holding the "worst of the worst," as most prisoners (some in jail without trials for over five years) were not taken on the battlefield but through "bounties." Consequently, most were not hardcore, many were lackies or completely innocent as England and Canada have not only not rejailed released detainees but in recent cases paid millions because of mistaken arrest and torture in Bush's secret prisons or via cooperative torture agreements in Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, etc.

Y'all are fools. User 'From one who has dealt with captured terrorist' is right about the tribunals. Of the three terrorist trials since 9/11, 1 went free, 2 got convicted, and of those 2, both are now free men. Tribunals are unproven in effectiveness, whereas civilian courts have dished out life sentences. Even just the one dished out for Ghailani was 20 years to life, with the AGF saying it would be life without parole.
Think and research before you type about things you haven't the slightest grasp of...

The US Constitution is holding up very well within Civilian courts during this war on terror. What conservatives continue is the FEAR FEAR FEAR anti American campaign against our great US Constitution. Conservatives want extra constitutional government powers that aren't needed.

What we have here is a failure to give respect. Our "leaders" know that the accepted rules for gathering evidence and gathering witness testimony cannot be followed when the crimes are taking place overseas and involve war activity. ANY suspect, under these circumstances, can claim torture, destruction of evidence, etc. Our court system is not equiped to handle these objections connsidering the circumstances. Obviously, our wonderful "progressive" judges think they're playing a game with American lives.
Holder, Clinton, et all are FULL OF IT. Can someone give them a clue to stop lying TO OUR FACES.
We, the people, are not as dumb as you and your college-programmed robots.